Hi Richard, My belief, from having looked at this code quite some time ago, is that we deliberately have mechanisms for handling --option=foo and --option foo differently, as in some circumstances GCC has different semantics for each. It just seemed to me that about a million aliases were missing for the cases where semantics didn't differ.
Cheers, James On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 1:41:04 AM Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > By coincidence, I happened to run into the fact that we don't support > --target earlier today. We have a lot of truly weird baggage in our > command-line syntax, but I think we should be striving to minimize it. Is > there a justification for supporting one of "--foo bar" and "--foo=bar" but > not the other, for *any* of our options with arguments? > > (I find it especially weird that our TableGen option mechanism has native > support for handling "-Ifoo" and "-I foo" as the same option, but not for > the more common case of "--blah foo" and "--blah=foo".) > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Let's go with it. I don't see a reason not to. The only (somewhat silly) >> objection I was thinking was that --target <triple> feels like the >> configure option. But that's not necessarily a bad thing and I like it more >> than --target= anyhow :) >> >> -eric >> >> >> REPOSITORY >> rL LLVM >> >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D7730 >> >> EMAIL PREFERENCES >> http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
